suggestions for diy front soundstage

One of the many Ewave variants, or a Pi 3 or 4.

4Pi

http://audioroundtable.com/forum/ind...lack#msg_63366

That's it. The plans don't have cut lists or a lot of detail, so you do have to figure out the cuts.

You can source all the parts yourself, but I have found that Wayne's prices are very competitive. Plus the crossovers come fully assembled on PC boards.

I'm planning on building four 2π soon for surrounds and then down the road either three 4π for LCR or a pair of 7π cornerhorns with a 4π center (Per Wayne's recommendation)

On the upgrades, Wayne says the woofer is most important, then the HF driver, with the component upgrades not that big of a deal.

+1 to all the advice so far.

the monitor 11's and triad golds are typical home audio speakers. low tuned. low sensitivity. no controlled directivity.

the 3 and 4 pi speakers are higher tuned, high sensitivity controlled directivity. without a sub, the former may be better. with subs, there is no contest.

one benefit of high sensitivity speakers is that they have much lower power compression. what they give up is a little flatness in frequency response. it turns out that we are highly sensitive to dynamices (power compression), but much less so when it comes to frequency response. part of what happens during "break in" is that your mind learns how to adjust to your new speakers.

another benefit is reduced distortion at any given power level.

triad used to use scanspeak drivers, which are very nice. not sure what they use today. the challenge that they face is that a typical 8" scanspeak (8555) 87 db 1w1m is 1/10th as sensitive as a decent pro audio 15" such as the jbl 2226h at 97db 1w1m.

so you would need 10 scanspeaks 8" for one jbl 15" to have a fair fight in the midbass and 10 scanspeaks just get to be too much money. this is why you will never find 8" drivers in a direct radiator pro audio application unless in line arrays.

also, with controlled directivity mains, aimed just in front of the listener, you may not need a center channel. many folks, including myself, find the center channel that is above or below the screen to be a distraction. a "phantom center" setup can place the dialog right on the lower center of the screen, which is where it should be.

there is a lot to your question that doesn't show up in traditional marketing specs. imagine that. :-)

That is far from universally true, it depends upon the design of the driver.

If you are going to spend the extra $$ and you have a sub sytem the 3Pi is a superior design/driver choice vs the 4Pi.

You just missed out on the TD series driver 30% discount though

"That is far from universally true, it depends upon the design of the driver."

show me the data. as i understand it, frequency response gets more rippled the higher sensitivity you go. that is just a fact. smoothness in frequency response is the reason that low sensitivity drivers exist.

As many have said here, there really are many great DIY choices.

You simply can't go wrong with 3/4Pi. Probably your best bets there.

For my next front speaker projects, I started looking at the e-waves, then the 3/4pi but ultimately decided to go in a new direction with the recent AE group buys.

My new main speakers would be actively built around the AE TD12M, DE250, and SEOS 12 run by a 2x4 MiniDSP. Check out the thread if you're interested.

And bandwidth?

There is always a trade off. Oh, and price. For $30 you can get really flat and extended woofers. But they're really inefficient

LTD02, I'm hearing this news of dynamics being more important than FR for the first time. Even on these dynamics touting boards. I was under the impression that flatness and extention were shown to be the highest priority - for music we'll say. Is there some research on this I haven't seen? Thanks.

I think the FR smoothness/flatness mantra that has been pushed for years is finally exposed for what it really is

I know saying its all just a choice is annoying but everyone has to first understand any possible compromise then prioritize what is important to them.

First people need to realize that you can not hear ripples show in 1/24 octave FR plots...instead 1/3 or 1/6th is the more likely plots that have more meaning to what anyone will hear. All those very small ripples are masked so its only a measurement thing (Yeah, that is hard to get past sometimes!!). The whole baffle diffraction/using felt thing always made me giggle but someone is always going to care about the measured ripple.

How can Danley products sound so go but have the worst FR plots?

But I thought there was actual research saying flatness was priority 1. I'd totally agree that a little ripple is inaudible. And I sure wish I could afford $300 sensitive woofers. But I can hear broad dips and peaks, even of only a couple db. So I get hung up on FR.

Now what LTD02 is saying is intriguing that we adjust once we've listened for a while. I can buy into that. I've experienced that, so hard to deny it.

Right now in my Challenger build I'm fighting over a half octave wide 2db peak at 1500hz. Will it be audible? I do not know yet. Maybe I should just get over it and build it

You can always add a DSP in the chain and try the design with or without the dip. Listen to normal content both ways and decide if its worth it to focus on it.

FWIW, I have never seen valid controlled listening tests proving flatness is #1. A person just needs to look at some of the FR plots of famous designs to know that having a great sounding design has little to do with FR plots.

Check out B&W, Martin Logan, Danley for proof that there is zero correlation between flat FR plots (by themselves) and great sounding designs.

Add Geddes famous on axis dip and serious drop off around 15KHz to the long list of subjectively incredible sounding designs.

"LTD02, I'm hearing this news of dynamics being more important than FR for the first time."

i'm not saying that frequency response doesn't matter, it does, just that there is another dimension that doesn't show up in traditional measurements that matters.

Wayne is a very generous man with his designs and makes them available for free just for the asking on his forum.

I waited for a sale on the Woofers and sourced all the parts for the upgraded version individually and my total tab less cabinets was $1820 (for three). If you don't have the time, Wayne's mark-up for all the parts and an assembled crossover is very modest.

"How can Danley products sound so [good] but have the worst FR plots?"

there is a good question...:-)

If its the upgraded 3pi then yes. Wayne P. has suggested to me that the upgraded 3Pi (TD12S and DE250) is his best design.

He does say he doesn't think there is much difference and he doesn't really like to pick one design over the other.

You can't go wrong with either. You are getting a well-designed crossover which is worth its weight in gold. Parham generously gives away the design for free. I'd suggest either buying the PCB and soldering yourself or just buying the prebuilt from him (upgrade to 15ga inductors, but leave the caps stock). I'd upgrade the compression driver and woofer.

As far as 3pi vs 4pi (assuming both fully upgraded), I'd probably choose the 3pi. You will lose a little senstivity, but the compression driver is loaded a bit better at the higher crossover. The main difference is the price. You missed the group buy, but the TD12S is still cheaper than a 2226. It is also a better looking woofer IMO. That can be a factor if the speaker will be on display.

I agree with those suggesting a "phantom center" setup. I do this in my living room and in a friend's house I set up. It requires a good directivity controlled design like the Pi speakers. That is assuming you don't have an acoustically transparent screen to hide the center.

In order of my preference:

1. 3 directivity controlled matching L/C/R, all at same height behind screen (at least the C behind the screen, L and R can be outside of screen)
2. Phantom center with directivity controlled L/R properly toed-in
3. 3 non-directivity controlled at same height like #1
4. 3 non-directivity controlled with horizontal center below screen or flatscreen

First and foremost, in the anecdotal impressions I've read, the take-away is a "wow" factor from experiencing absolute dynamic realism. In my opinion, the white paper is just that,..a white paper. What matters is what's audible at the LP.

In a broad scope, I'd suggest that well controlled throw pattern of some of the Danley products lessens a room's contribution. And when you combine those elements with a level of dynamic capability, and absolute freedom from compression and other distortions, the product is quite impressive for the needs of HT. Any coherency, or lack thereof, is secondary and is more icing on the cake, and would bear fruit long term. Just as ragged frequency response becomes problematic over time, and isn't quite as easy to delineate at first listen. However, once one learns to hear certain elements, like frequency issues and lack of smoothness, resonances etc., it becomes very easy to hear these problems. It's an acquired skill-set, initially fleshed out with an A/B side by side demo. But once developed, easy to use and it become second nature.


In a search for new HT mains, I looked at many of the usual suspects. Geddes, Seaton, Danley, JTR, JBL, and others. I really became curious about TD's work, and began to express my interest in Danley's various SH products in several threads etc. I received many IM's/e-mails explaining that alone, they audition quite strong, however over time, along-side competitors within the same $, their aberrant freq. behavior became intolerable. Three entirely independent exchanges with individuals, were quite consistent with their findings.

To be fair, the Danley SH series is aimed at an entirely different market segment than for example Seaton's Catalyst. However, there exists this crossover appeal within the enthusiast HT segment.

Finally, I'd bet TD and company would prefer the SH stuff had better behavior in the frequency domain. I do too.

Good info from all. Thanks. Sorry to hijack your thread 'phile. Good luck with the hunt.

If on a budget, my Challengers may turn out good and should come in under $200 per speaker. And look a little more hifi. But they're not done yet, and won't be as dynamic as the previous suggestions. They're supposed to challenge them, but not beat them

How about a Gedlee kit, here.

A set of Abbeys would be fantastic.

Right here: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1365137

If your budget is over a grand though, they aren't for you though. I'm really anticipating good results from it.

He (Geddes) would probably audition them for you. He's in Northville.

How come some people like broccoli and others hate it?

In the end, it's a matter of taste.

IMO, the first thing that should be considered before buying/building speakers is the room and available placement. I glanced your sub thread but couldn't find a photo of your soundstage other than your sub placed in the corner flanked by your current mains with the screen to the inside. Mind sharing a picture?